Chris Carter release following international appeal

The story is told here in the Spectator (dated 9 February). Click images to enlarge:

 (1)

 (2)

 (3)

(4)

Carter was released thanks to the online donations of money to pay an unpaid fine by people everywhere, like Nick Hogan under different circumstances nearly two years ago. Organisers included Bill Gibson of TICAP and Smokers' Justice. 

The judge declared there was that 'no certifiable public interest had been identified'. It would seem on the face of things that those donating their resources to Chris's appeal fund would disagree with this and find that several aspects of the case warranted public scrutiny.

Miscellaneous on tobacco control

1. Front page view of local rebel (local to Northern Ireland that is) on his way into prison. There will be a further report of his release shortly.

2. Court of Session turns down Imperial Tobacco's case against the Scottish Government claiming that the tobacco display ban is unconstitutional. Imperial may yet appeal but no final decision is yet made.

3. 'More smokers expected to die outside pubs this winter.' Speaks for itself.

Political crimes

It is good to learn that the appeal for Chris Carter has reached its target.

He has the support of the British Constitution Group among others.  This is not a group I have studied in detail (an introductory video is here, uploaded to Youtube in August 2011), but I understand it to be a group that favours national rather than supranational government, and would prefer us to be subject to UK laws rather than those of the EC, or the UN.

Personally I don't find the Union Jack a particularly appealing symbol (it was used heavily by the far right when I was growing up).  I also find the headline of the piece on Chris quite strong ('One law for smokers ... another for rapists and paedophiles'), to say nothing of the fact that it is linked to the Daily Mail.  (Oh dear – my prejudices are showing themselves.) And the introduction of the piece is almost hysterical:

'Rapists, paedophiles and kidnappers were among the serious criminals getting away with just a caution...1,405 offenders received a ticking off rather than facing the full force of the law in 2010 - including 22 rapists and 144 who had sex with girls under the legal age.'

One thousand, four hundred and five out of how many serious criminals are getting away with a caution? Does that represent a substantial proportion of perpetrators, or not? It looks more like an attempt to shock than a reasoned comparison, or even an attempt to inform the public.

That said, there is a clear point that somebody convicted for an essentially trivial offence (smoking in a town hall, for heaven's sake) with political ramifications is pursued doggedly, and no one points out that in this kind of case short sentences just don't work. It is suggested that a political  offence  is likely to attract a stronger reaction from the authorities than criminal behaviour that actually endangers public safety.

It goes on:

Firstly, the Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 was made on 14th November, 2006 by the Privy Council. Counsellors (sic) present included Sir Brian Leveson and Elish Angiolini. Secondly, the judges who blocked Chris Carter's submissions from reaching the Supreme Court have also been found to be Privy Counsellors. 

Of course people who make legislative orders should not participate in judging those who breach them.       Legislative process does matter, as does the separation of powers. It is completely wrong that anyone involved in the body that passed the smoking ban legislation in Ireland should be in a position to deny Chris Carter his right of appeal.

This document from the Council of the European Union discusses smoking ban enforcement:

43. When active enforcement begins, many jurisdictions recommend the use of high-profile prosecutions to enhance deterrence. By identifying prominent violators who have actively defied the law or who are well known in the community, by taking firm and swift action and by seeking maximum public awareness of these activities, authorities are able to demonstrate their resolve and the seriousness of the law. This increases voluntary compliance and reduces the resources needed for future monitoring and enforcement.

For 'firm and swift action', read draconian measures. Lighting up in a town hall is an offence only because it defies political dogma.

Bid for court hearing on smoking ban: Chris Carter appeal

Chris Carter has been fighting to bring the smoking ban before the courts for many years now. Last week he was denied a hearing before the Supreme Court. The story is here, and Pat Nurse has more.

Chris's case is complex and involved citing some powerful witnesses. The courts have denied him the opportunity to present it.

If you wish to assist him to minimise his impending gaol term, please go here. Fines and costs added up to £1,250. Cheques can be made payable to P & P Productions, and sent to P & P Productions at 37 Windley Road, Leicester LE2 6QX.

Stop press: the target has now been reached.

Smoking ban compared with Third Reich: Chris Carter

Chris Carter's latest court appearance is reported here, and here, with some of the background here. Mr Carter believes that the law was passed using inaccurate and misleading information and has been seeking a judicial review to correct matters. Last year he was refused leave to cite three NI government ministers as witnesses and earlier this year his application for a judicial review was refused. He was then granted leave to challenge the law again before different judges.

The initial offence, smoking in North Downs Borough Council offices, drew a fine of  £1,250: he narrowly escaped prison last year after stating that he would not pay. His purpose was to challenge the law by bringing it to a judicial review. No decision was reached in court yesterday.

He has used a photograph in the court of a cancer patient allegedly made to smoke outdoors. Part of his case hinges on the inhumane treatment of smokers.

A four-figure fine for lighting up in an office is an absurd outcome. Prison for non-payment is equally absurd. There are real problems with real crime on the streets and such a fine is justified only by the perception that Mr Carter was imperilling the lives of North Downs council officers by lighting up. Of course, his judicial review should be heard, because his evidence will show how unlikely this is.

He will be permitted an appeal if the current judgement goes against him.